Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > Feedback > Forum Feedback and Support

Forum Feedback and Support Post forum feedback and related problems, here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-13-17, 01:31 PM   #1
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 38,112
Tolerance for trolls

Over in politics, we have a thread where two different mods have identified a particular poster as a troll. Yet they do nothing about it, other than say other posters shouldn't rise to the bait.

Now, I agree that other posters shouldn't rise to the bait -- I've stopped responding to this troll, even when he posts non-trollish things, because my experience is that every conversation with him turns into trolling rather quickly even if it doesn't start that way.

And I will also assume that the two mods were not wearing their mod hats when they called that poster a troll.

Still, I wonder why and to what extent trolls are going to be allowed to continue to post.

Certainly, I recognize that the mods don't want to cut off legitimate debate on contentious issues where strong feelings can get aroused. Politics Talk should not be an echo chamber.

At the same time, there are a few posters who consistently get into arguments with others across a variety of political views, who blanket threads with text, who post reply after reply, clogging the forum. It makes it very hard for others to have a discussion, and I guess I'm curious whether there is any sentiment among the mods to take a somewhat firmer hand in policing posts that seem designed to inflame rather than enlighten.
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
 
Old 06-13-17, 04:53 PM   #2
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 53,226
Re: Tolerance for trolls

That same troll is currently posting multiple word salads in the Regressive Left thread, and this isn't the first time he's completely derailed threads.
__________________
Never stop punching fascists.
Stop employing thugs and murderers: Abolish police, abolish the military.
 
Old 06-13-17, 05:29 PM   #3
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: Tolerance for trolls

__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
 
Old 06-13-17, 07:18 PM   #4
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 23,514
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Jason, you seem like a smart enough guy to figure out how to use the IGNORE button.
__________________
***DVDTALK GOLD TRADER***

http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/cwrujosh
 
Old 06-13-17, 09:01 PM   #5
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD Josh View Post
Jason, you seem like a smart enough guy to figure out how to use the IGNORE button.
Technology is a cruel taskmaster.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
 
Old 06-13-17, 09:02 PM   #6
Admin-Self Banned
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 28,857
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
You aren't helping your case with responses like this.
__________________
"Redistricting has made a tiny slice of ideological activists the power brokers in who gets sent to Congress."

www.endgerrymandering.com
Gerrymandering in the US
 
Old 06-13-17, 09:23 PM   #7
Admin-Self Banned
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 28,857
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Over in politics, we have a thread where two different mods have identified a particular poster as a troll. Yet they do nothing about it, other than say other posters shouldn't rise to the bait.

Now, I agree that other posters shouldn't rise to the bait -- I've stopped responding to this troll, even when he posts non-trollish things, because my experience is that every conversation with him turns into trolling rather quickly even if it doesn't start that way.

And I will also assume that the two mods were not wearing their mod hats when they called that poster a troll.

Still, I wonder why and to what extent trolls are going to be allowed to continue to post.

Certainly, I recognize that the mods don't want to cut off legitimate debate on contentious issues where strong feelings can get aroused. Politics Talk should not be an echo chamber.

At the same time, there are a few posters who consistently get into arguments with others across a variety of political views, who blanket threads with text, who post reply after reply, clogging the forum. It makes it very hard for others to have a discussion, and I guess I'm curious whether there is any sentiment among the mods to take a somewhat firmer hand in policing posts that seem designed to inflame rather than enlighten.
I did not call anyone a troll recently, so I hope you're not referring to me. If someone wants to reply with an overly verbose answer to posts, how is that against the rules? I don't have anyone on ignore, but at the same time, you see who I converse with on the forum and some people (hint hint), you'll notice I simply don't engage them. I've noticed some very wacky Trump supporters have been fairly successfully ignored by most posters here. People are not responding to nonsensical posts. I'm not sure why this situation is different.

That's not to say I haven't seen a bit of a change in his posting nature lately (the initial response in this thread is a perfect example). If things continue in that direction, I may change my opinion.
__________________
"Redistricting has made a tiny slice of ideological activists the power brokers in who gets sent to Congress."

www.endgerrymandering.com
Gerrymandering in the US
 
Old 06-13-17, 11:37 PM   #8
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinVega View Post
You aren't helping your case with responses like this.

Now, I'm going to assume that you were directly addressing me and that a response is permitted.

Since I no longer report anyone for any reason, including direct threats made, I'll just pose this question to you personally.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that forum members made a point of complaining to the mods about your posting style. Poster A has within the past three weeks just popped up out of the blue to publicly call you a "condescending jerk" and "condescending prick." Meanwhile, during the same time period, Poster B calls you endearing terms such as "baby bear" () and tells you to "just fucking grow up." And those are just part of a long history of insults.

So when those two posters complain about you & suggest that the forum rules be changed because they don't like your posting style and your political and religious views, what is your natural response? To lash out? To answer them with insults?

No, your response is to laugh at the ludicrousness of the situation. What other response makes any sense?

And then a moderator tells you that your amusement at the absolute absurdity of the situation "isn't helping your case."

I'd expect that you would find that humorous, too.

Let see if we have this straight. Posters can enter threads such as the Christian Idea thread specifically to mock & ridicule beliefs...but that isn't "trolling." People can stalk members for months on end with increasing intensity and then start threatening other members...but that isn't "trolling." People can make numerous posts over a short period in one thread and that's fine...but if someone else has an ongoing conversation, the latter is "trolling." People can make direct references to the region, the home town, and the church of other members...and that's not "trolling." People can try their hardest to provoke other members by directly questioning their intelligence, their integrity, and their maturity and can go out of their way to issue both thinly-veiled and very obvious and direct insults (often vulgar) toward members...but that isn't "trolling."

But if someone defends other members who are being attacked or posts legitimate news items carried by dozens of national press, both liberal and conservative...that's "trolling."

Hmmm. Don't you find that at least a little bit ?

So the posters who have ridiculed members wanting to see all forum members treated with respect are to be handled sympathetically, and the posters who refrain from the name-calling and want to stay focused on the issues are put on notice?

Since this is the feedback forum, I'm assuming that all can offer feedback and that it's not only limited to those sharing the same viewpoints as those in charge of the forum. Is this correct?

If so, then here's the feedback. Others have expressed the feeling that a double standard exists, and that some can break all manner of rules of common civility with impunity. As you say, warning people whose gravest offense is being amused at those who constantly complain about "suppression of ideas" and ridiculing "perceived slights" being the ones to call for banning others "doesn't help the case" for neutrality. It's interesting to note that those who are offended by "word salads" found those salads to be quite tasty when they were emailing the posters they now want to ban back when they needed help on a research project.

It's also interesting to the complainants' comments: "Of all the stupid, hate-fueled, bigoted things you have ever said, that has to be the stupidest. Oh, and, btw...you're condescending."

Don't you find it ironic that the folks who are swallowing the insults are the ones who are being called "condescending?" And the ones who maintain a polite tone and refrain from vulgarity are the ones who are "making the forum unusable" (although the forum seems to perk along just fine, astoundingly)?

If you looked into the posting history of anyone involved, any objective person would conclude that the offensive posts (including outright lies about things never said...proven by the offenders' refusal to provide quotes to back up their fabrications) come from those wanting to ban certain members because they don't like them and their views. On the other hand, the other side hasn't advocated banning anyone except for the rare individual who has threatened other members. And that's true even for those who are constantly doing little toward certain other members except to try to "push buttons" (with little success or response).

If moderators have a problem with certain members, perhaps it would be good for them to notify those members exactly what rules they are breaking and what the problems are. I'd suggest also that it doesn't help matters when moderators are talking about other members publicly rather than to them (and making mocking references such as, "You should see what they start to post and then delete" when joining in on the piling-on). It might also help if the moderators would ask members why they posted links if they suspect "trolling" to allow the members to explain their purpose rather than jumping to conclusions. Doesn't that seem fair? It especially seems biased when moderators label legitimate posts as "trolling" (ironically, posts that end up generating spirited conversations from different viewpoints...which would seem to be the purpose of the forum). At the same time, posts that are clearly simply expressing animosity toward others members are ignored. How does that make any sense if objectivity is the goal?

If the goal of the forum is just to represent one viewpoint...and it doesn't matter how extreme the posts are, as long as they are consistent with that viewpoint...the administrators could say so. But it seems ridiculously arbitrary to simply label posts as "trolling" without any explanation...especially when members have been around for almost two decades. When members have endured attacks such as "Fuck you and the god you worship," can you blame them for being amused when the worst someone can say about them is "You're so condescending...you hate-filled, moronic, backwoods bigot prick?"

What does seem obvious is that some wish to live in a bubble here in a clubhouse atmosphere in which they can commiserate unfiltered and unchallenged. They even have some threads devoted to just that, but that isn't sufficient. They'd rather see the entire forum "cleansed" of viewpoints which don't meet their standards. They say that the minority view is the problem...it has to be, since it's the minority (although they'd never suggest that if they were at a Trump or KKK rally, they would be the problem according to their logic). In essence, they want to have the forum to themselves.

Well, those of us who have put in a lot of hours and effort here (and, amazingly enough, are not the ones who have stated emphatically that they "hate" their opponents) consider this to be our community, too, and we're not leaving without a fight. We'll stay within the rules as long as free speech is still welcomed and won't get into the gutter and exchange lies for lies and insults for insults. We're not going anywhere voluntarily, and we make no apologies for the "reactions" of anyone who cannot accept a challenge without losing their minds. We're not responsible for those "reactions," particularly when we can put up with so many insults and just laugh it off. The ones who are mature enough to engage in debate can continue to converse, and the others can do as they wish among themselves. No one is forcing anyone to talk to anybody if they are easily offended.

Apologies for keeping this post concise. I could have been a lot more thorough, but it's late.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."

Last edited by creekdipper; 06-13-17 at 11:57 PM.
 
Old 06-13-17, 11:48 PM   #9
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 38,112
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinVega View Post
I did not call anyone a troll recently, so I hope you're not referring to me. If someone wants to reply with an overly verbose answer to posts, how is that against the rules? I don't have anyone on ignore, but at the same time, you see who I converse with on the forum and some people (hint hint), you'll notice I simply don't engage them. I've noticed some very wacky Trump supporters have been fairly successfully ignored by most posters here. People are not responding to nonsensical posts. I'm not sure why this situation is different.

That's not to say I haven't seen a bit of a change in his posting nature lately (the initial response in this thread is a perfect example). If things continue in that direction, I may change my opinion.
No, it wasn't you. It was two other mods. Both of them said -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- something to the effect of "yes, he's a troll, but the solution is for you other posters to ignore him."

And I certainly do ignore him, but I guess I have to wonder why he's allowed to post of if we all agree that the best course of action is to pretend his posts don't exist. As someone pointed out, if he were spamming every thread in Movie Talk with long rants about how Joss Whedon i so much better than every other director, he'd be banned, and I'm not sure how this is any different.
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
 
Old 06-14-17, 12:01 AM   #10
Admin-Self Banned
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 28,857
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper
................................
So you're not reporting posts anymore? You forgot to mention that the main person who was trolling you was suspended because of the RTP feature. Or maybe you did mention it. If you want to take moderation into your own hands it will not end well.
 
Old 06-14-17, 12:11 AM   #11
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
No, it wasn't you. It was two other mods. Both of them said -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- something to the effect of "yes, he's a troll, but the solution is for you other posters to ignore him."

And I certainly do ignore him, but I guess I have to wonder why he's allowed to post of if we all agree that the best course of action is to pretend his posts don't exist. As someone pointed out, if he were spamming every thread in Movie Talk with long rants about how Joss Whedon i so much better than every other director, he'd be banned, and I'm not sure how this is any different.
It's different because "he" isn't doing anything of the sort.

I'd suggest that perhaps "we" should take a look at "our" posts to see if we have been truthful. If not, then perhaps "we" should admit that we have a personal axe to grind and are allowing that to make us engage in behavior that we wouldn't tolerate in others.

It's interesting to note that the same viewpoints that you characterize as "rants" are posted by other members using nearly identical language...and continuing over a series of posts over a couple of pages.

And yet you don't seem to have any problem at all with them. And you don't feel the need to call those posters insulting and vulgar names.

That lack of consistency and objectivity alone ought to make you pause and question your obvious animosity.

I'd also suggest that you mistakenly assume that because "you" can't carry on a civil conversation with "him," that means that "we all agree" to ignore "him." It hasn't occurred to you that not everyone agrees with you and that others are able to carry on a civil conversation. You don't speak for all the members here.

If this were a courtroom, you'd be asked to back up your charges. You've moved from your apparent offense at being "condescended" to because someone actually feels that his views are superior to yours (just as you do toward him), and now you have wandered into the "walls of text" complaints territory.

If someone...member or moderator...wants to give examples of how I have broken forum rules other than to offer offending worldviews, please do so. On the other hand, if you'd like to see examples of how those complainants have violated forum rules, that will be a snap to provide.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."

Last edited by creekdipper; 06-14-17 at 01:33 AM.
 
Old 06-14-17, 12:12 AM   #12
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinVega View Post
So you're not reporting posts anymore? You forgot to mention that the main person who was trolling you was suspended because of the RTP feature. Or maybe you did mention it. If you want to take moderation into your own hands it will not end well.

Excuse me?

Exactly how does NOT reporting posts amount to "taking moderation into [my] own hands?"

[Edited for punctuation correction].
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
 
Old 06-14-17, 12:28 AM   #13
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Trying to figure out that last cryptic comment, the only thing I can come up with is when the statement about being able to point out rules violations.

That was not a general statement. That was if someone said, "I've never personally insulted you," and I might respond by providing one of the quotes reading, "You're a smug, condescending prick." Or if they falsely attributed something to you and you showed that they had invented the statement. That's not "taking moderation into one's own hands." That's setting the record straight.

I'm assuming that personal attacks, trolling, making up false quotes, etc. are still against forum rules. I was talking about responding to specific allegations (which, more often than not, are simply ignored) that fall under the posted rules guidelines...not going out of my way to unilaterally point out obvious rules violations which seem to occur with regularity.

I'm saying that I have no intention of ever reporting anyone for any reason. I'll leave that for others, although I do have to wonder how many individuals reported the threatening behavior of the poster in question, just out of curiosity.

I previously said that if I saw other members being attacked again (the only two times I have really lost my temper on this website), I wouldn't hesitate to call attention to that fact again...after, as was previously done, reporting the threats through both the RTP feature and personally contacting a mod.

I have changed my mind, just as I changed my mind about leaving the site voluntarily (as you well know). I will simply wait to see just how long the other forum members who are so concerned with social justice will allow the situation to go on without rising to the defense of one of their own and observe the results.

[Edit: Since you brought it up, it seems only fair that you explain what you meant by "the change in his posting nature lately." Even at my most upset over the lack of response to other members being personally threatened...something I can't ever recall seeing in my fifteen years here...I stayed within the rules. The locked thread which was "mainly" responsible for my vacation (no other reasons given) was a response to the repeated "trolling" of others referencing a "Christian Taliban"...and the repeated references to conservative Christians wanting to make women slaves, execute homosexuals, etc. and that pro-lifers just want to "control women" and other such nonsense. It was not designed as a "trolling thread;" it was a legitimate observation about who more closely resembled the Taliban. Members had the option of ignoring the thread (I ignore many...even those in which others mistakenly predict which "undesirable" posters will enter due to the biases of those others) or pointing out where my premise was wrong. Instead, the posters proceeded to illustrate the very points laid out in the OP...and that fact was pointed out. I would have been happy if no one had responded after making my point, and I would have been happy to discuss the issue. To blame a member for the reactions of others, especially when the reactions perfectly demonstrate the main points, seems disingenuous. It could be argued that the "trolls" were those who behaved in the manner predicted of those sharing their views.

Nonetheless, I didn't complain about the vacation (except for the extended stay).

I and others have bent over backward trying to be civil and ignore repeated insults. Some have just left the forum altogether...contrary to what the OP in this thread says, due to being driven off by ganging-up tactics. Others who used to post more frequently have just given up.

Ironically, one homosexual member with whom I had a regular correspondence a few years back said that he had left the political forum because it was just too much bickering and arguing and wasn't worth it. I understand what he meant, but I'm still sticking around to argue my viewpoints.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."

Last edited by creekdipper; 06-14-17 at 01:13 AM.
 
Old 06-14-17, 01:28 AM   #14
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Kurtie Dee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 3,600
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Now, I'm going to assume that you were directly addressing me and that a response is permitted.

Since I no longer report anyone for any reason, including direct threats made, I'll just pose this question to you personally.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that forum members made a point of complaining to the mods about your posting style. Poster A has within the past three weeks just popped up out of the blue to publicly call you a "condescending jerk" and "condescending prick." Meanwhile, during the same time period, Poster B calls you endearing terms such as "baby bear" () and tells you to "just fucking grow up." And those are just part of a long history of insults.

So when those two posters complain about you & suggest that the forum rules be changed because they don't like your posting style and your political and religious views, what is your natural response? To lash out? To answer them with insults?

No, your response is to laugh at the ludicrousness of the situation. What other response makes any sense?

And then a moderator tells you that your amusement at the absolute absurdity of the situation "isn't helping your case."

I'd expect that you would find that humorous, too.

Let see if we have this straight. Posters can enter threads such as the Christian Idea thread specifically to mock & ridicule beliefs...but that isn't "trolling." People can stalk members for months on end with increasing intensity and then start threatening other members...but that isn't "trolling." People can make numerous posts over a short period in one thread and that's fine...but if someone else has an ongoing conversation, the latter is "trolling." People can make direct references to the region, the home town, and the church of other members...and that's not "trolling." People can try their hardest to provoke other members by directly questioning their intelligence, their integrity, and their maturity and can go out of their way to issue both thinly-veiled and very obvious and direct insults (often vulgar) toward members...but that isn't "trolling."

But if someone defends other members who are being attacked or posts legitimate news items carried by dozens of national press, both liberal and conservative...that's "trolling."

Hmmm. Don't you find that at least a little bit ?

So the posters who have ridiculed members wanting to see all forum members treated with respect are to be handled sympathetically, and the posters who refrain from the name-calling and want to stay focused on the issues are put on notice?

Since this is the feedback forum, I'm assuming that all can offer feedback and that it's not only limited to those sharing the same viewpoints as those in charge of the forum. Is this correct?

If so, then here's the feedback. Others have expressed the feeling that a double standard exists, and that some can break all manner of rules of common civility with impunity. As you say, warning people whose gravest offense is being amused at those who constantly complain about "suppression of ideas" and ridiculing "perceived slights" being the ones to call for banning others "doesn't help the case" for neutrality. It's interesting to note that those who are offended by "word salads" found those salads to be quite tasty when they were emailing the posters they now want to ban back when they needed help on a research project.

It's also interesting to the complainants' comments: "Of all the stupid, hate-fueled, bigoted things you have ever said, that has to be the stupidest. Oh, and, btw...you're condescending."

Don't you find it ironic that the folks who are swallowing the insults are the ones who are being called "condescending?" And the ones who maintain a polite tone and refrain from vulgarity are the ones who are "making the forum unusable" (although the forum seems to perk along just fine, astoundingly)?

If you looked into the posting history of anyone involved, any objective person would conclude that the offensive posts (including outright lies about things never said...proven by the offenders' refusal to provide quotes to back up their fabrications) come from those wanting to ban certain members because they don't like them and their views. On the other hand, the other side hasn't advocated banning anyone except for the rare individual who has threatened other members. And that's true even for those who are constantly doing little toward certain other members except to try to "push buttons" (with little success or response).

If moderators have a problem with certain members, perhaps it would be good for them to notify those members exactly what rules they are breaking and what the problems are. I'd suggest also that it doesn't help matters when moderators are talking about other members publicly rather than to them (and making mocking references such as, "You should see what they start to post and then delete" when joining in on the piling-on). It might also help if the moderators would ask members why they posted links if they suspect "trolling" to allow the members to explain their purpose rather than jumping to conclusions. Doesn't that seem fair? It especially seems biased when moderators label legitimate posts as "trolling" (ironically, posts that end up generating spirited conversations from different viewpoints...which would seem to be the purpose of the forum). At the same time, posts that are clearly simply expressing animosity toward others members are ignored. How does that make any sense if objectivity is the goal?

If the goal of the forum is just to represent one viewpoint...and it doesn't matter how extreme the posts are, as long as they are consistent with that viewpoint...the administrators could say so. But it seems ridiculously arbitrary to simply label posts as "trolling" without any explanation...especially when members have been around for almost two decades. When members have endured attacks such as "Fuck you and the god you worship," can you blame them for being amused when the worst someone can say about them is "You're so condescending...you hate-filled, moronic, backwoods bigot prick?"

What does seem obvious is that some wish to live in a bubble here in a clubhouse atmosphere in which they can commiserate unfiltered and unchallenged. They even have some threads devoted to just that, but that isn't sufficient. They'd rather see the entire forum "cleansed" of viewpoints which don't meet their standards. They say that the minority view is the problem...it has to be, since it's the minority (although they'd never suggest that if they were at a Trump or KKK rally, they would be the problem according to their logic). In essence, they want to have the forum to themselves.

Well, those of us who have put in a lot of hours and effort here (and, amazingly enough, are not the ones who have stated emphatically that they "hate" their opponents) consider this to be our community, too, and we're not leaving without a fight. We'll stay within the rules as long as free speech is still welcomed and won't get into the gutter and exchange lies for lies and insults for insults. We're not going anywhere voluntarily, and we make no apologies for the "reactions" of anyone who cannot accept a challenge without losing their minds. We're not responsible for those "reactions," particularly when we can put up with so many insults and just laugh it off. The ones who are mature enough to engage in debate can continue to converse, and the others can do as they wish among themselves. No one is forcing anyone to talk to anybody if they are easily offended.

Apologies for keeping this post concise. I could have been a lot more thorough, but it's late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Trying to figure out that last cryptic comment, the only thing I can come up with is when the statement about being able to point out rules violations.

That was not a general statement. That was if someone said, "I've never personally insulted you," and I might respond by providing one of the quotes reading, "You're a smug, condescending prick." Or if they falsely attributed something to you and you showed that they had invented the statement. That's not "taking moderation into one's own hands." That's setting the record straight.

I'm assuming that personal attacks, trolling, making up false quotes, etc. are still against forum rules. I was talking about responding to specific allegations (which, more often than not, are simply ignored) that fall under the posted rules guidelines...not going out of my way to unilaterally point out obvious rules violations which seem to occur with regularity.

I'm saying that I have no intention of ever reporting anyone for any reason. I'll leave that for others, although I do have to wonder how many individuals reported the threatening behavior of the poster in question, just out of curiosity.

I previously said that if I saw other members being attacked again (the only two times I have really lost my temper on this website), I wouldn't hesitate to call attention to that fact again...after, as was previously done, reporting the threats through both the RTP feature and personally contacting a mod.

I have changed my mind, just as I changed my mind about leaving the site voluntarily (as you well know). I will simply wait to see just how long the other forum members who are so concerned with social justice will allow the situation to go on without rising to the defense of one of their own and observe the results.

[Edit: Since you brought it up, it seems only fair that you explain what you meant by "the change in his posting nature lately." Even at my most upset over the lack of response to other members being personally threatened...something I can't ever recall seeing in my fifteen years here...I stayed within the rules. The locked thread which was "mainly" responsible for my vacation (no other reasons given) was a response to the repeated "trolling" of others referencing a "Christian Taliban"...and the repeated references to conservative Christians wanting to make women slaves, execute homosexuals, etc. and that pro-lifers just want to "control women" and other such nonsense. It was not designed as a "trolling thread;" it was a legitimate observation about who more closely resembled the Taliban. Members had the option of ignoring the thread (I ignore many...even those in which others mistakenly predict which "undesirable" posters will enter due to the biases of those others) or pointing out where my premise was wrong. Instead, the posters proceeded to illustrate the very points laid out in the OP...and that fact was pointed out. I would have been happy if no one had responded after making my point, and I would have been happy to discuss the issue. To blame a member for the reactions of others, especially when the reactions perfectly demonstrate the main points, seems disingenuous. It could be argued that the "trolls" were those who behaved in the manner predicted of those sharing their views.

Nonetheless, I didn't complain about the vacation (except for the extended stay).

I and others have bent over backward trying to be civil and ignore repeated insults. Some have just left the forum altogether...contrary to what the OP in this thread says, due to being driven off by ganging-up tactics. Others who used to post more frequently have just given up.

Ironically, one homosexual member with whom I had a regular correspondence a few years back said that he had left the political forum because it was just too much bickering and arguing and wasn't worth it. I understand what he meant, but I'm still sticking around to argue my viewpoints.
It's just a forum, man ...
__________________
"I'm gettin' too young for this shit." - Kurt

My Countdown Counting down to: someone reading my countdown.
1121 days 7 hours 58 minutes
 
Old 06-14-17, 01:34 AM   #15
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee View Post
It's just a forum, man ...
Did you tell that to the first two posters in this thread?

They seem to take things very seriously, and my smilie amusement at their seriousness was taken seriously by a moderator.

Don't worry, Kurtie...I still think the whole thing is hilarious. But I don't care for internet bullies trying to lecture people about "tolerance" while calling people "trolls." That is funny, but it's also annoying.

And it gives an indication of what direction some people would like to take society in silencing dissent. And that's not so funny.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."

Last edited by creekdipper; 06-14-17 at 01:41 AM.
 
Old 06-14-17, 01:44 AM   #16
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee View Post
Clearly not, or they would have been multi-quoted in my response!
Thank goodness you didn't since you would immediately have been reported by a whole slew of offended parties.

Now, if you had threatened them in some way, that might be a different story.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
 
Old 06-14-17, 08:28 AM   #17
Admin-Self Banned
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 28,857
Re: Tolerance for trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Excuse me?

Exactly how does NOT reporting posts amount to "taking moderation into [my] own hands?"

[Edited for punctuation correction].
Taking moderation into your own hands: You see someone you feel is trolling you, and you respond by trolling them. I'm seeing this behavior a lot from you lately (example: Your American Taliban thread). That's what got you suspended. You can post a 10,000 word response to me proving how you are right, but at the end of the day I'm entrusted by the owners here to run this place and it's MY opinion (and my team's opinion) of what a troll is or is not that matters.

So at this point, it's the end of the discussion and to help emphasize this, I'm closing the thread.
__________________
"Redistricting has made a tiny slice of ideological activists the power brokers in who gets sent to Congress."

www.endgerrymandering.com
Gerrymandering in the US
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0